EAST Hampshire district councillors threw out their officers' advice last Thursday and voted to refuse planning permission for 23 homes at the former Bramshott nursing home, Ludshott Manor.

Members of the south planning committee voted by 11 votes to five to reject the planning application from Macleod Ltd, despite a recommendation from planning officer Chris Lyons to give the proposal the go-ahead.

Before members made their decision, Mr Lyons warned them they were running the risk of having to pay "substantial costs" at a public inquiry and he told councillors he did not believe their suggested reasons for refusal would hold water.

"I don't believe there is any reason for refusal," he said, "and I would be very concerned if this went to appeal that substantial costs are in danger of being awarded against the council."

Mr Lyons added: "Officers are very concerned that if this went to a public inquiry they would not be able to back up the reasons for refusal that have been suggested."

He told the meeting that the plan to alter and extend the current buildings at Ludshott Manor to form 23 homes were, in the officers' opinion, a great improvement to the present buildings. "There is an attractive building at the core of the site and the proposals would free that up," Mr Lyons stressed.

He said some objectors had raised concerns about the TRICS data used to calculate vehicle movement, but he told the meeting that the data was a good guide which was recognised and used nationally, as well as by planning appeal inspectors and by district and county councils.

The data showed that 136 vehicle movements a day were generated by the use of Ludshott Manor as a nursing home for 44 residents. The home was licensed for 56 residents which would generate 174 daily traffic movements.

But an existing planning permission for a further 276 residents at the nursing home would mean 273 traffic movements a day.

This compared with 191 generated by the new proposal for 23 homes, said Mr Lyons.

He added: "It is the officers' opinion that the amount of traffic movement is significantly less than what could happen on the site as a nursing home. It is capable of two and a half times what the developer is proposing."

Mr Lyons said that in the officers' opinion the proposed development was a good-quality scheme.

John Elson, parking and highways manager for East Hampshire District Council, said he sympathised with objectors who raised concerns about the sunken lanes.

"We all agree that the access is very poor and if we were considering new development we would be objecting on highways grounds. However, this is an existing site."

Chairman of the committee Sue Halstead warned councillors: "Clearly it would be impossible for our professional officers to fight this at a public inquiry. We as councillors would have to fight it."

Councillors heard Michael Knowles speak against the development on behalf of objectors and the Bramshott and Liphook Preservation Society.

Mr Knowles was concerned about the level of traffic using the sunken lanes. He claimed the data used to arrive at the numbers of traffic movements was flawed and produced evidence from experts to strengthen his case.

Jim Walters said Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council also objected to the plan on highway grounds. He also pointed out that there was no public transport to the site and passing places referred to in the access road should be discounted as they were privately owned.

He wanted to see Woolmer Lane, the access road, designated as a "quiet lane" with a 20 mph speed limit.

But Mr Macleod, the developer, told councillors that he was proposing less than one more traffic movement an hour, than currently took place.

"Ludshott Manor is a listed building which is deteriorating very fast and it needs major restoration," he said.

He told councillors he had looked at reducing the number of homes and it was not viable.

He pointed out that his scheme would generate 30 per cent less traffic than an existing scheme for Ludshott Manor which already had planning permission. There had been no objections to the scheme from the parish council, the highways authority or the local residents, he said.

Continued on Page 3